Standing Committee D

[Mr. Jimmy Hood in the Chair]

Railways and Transport Safety Bill

Clause 75 - Professional staff on duty

Amendment moved [this day]: No. 85, in 
clause 75, page 31, line 7, after 'to', insert 
 'any person employed in any capacity aboard a vessel, including'.—[Miss McIntosh.]

Jimmy Hood: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing amendment No. 76, in
clause 75, page 31, line 10, at end insert— 
 '(d) a person whose primary and main function is the command of a vessel carrying passengers for a fee.'.

Anne McIntosh: Welcome back to the Committee, Mr. Hood.
 When we finished this morning, I was referring to comments made by the Secretary of State on Second Reading. He said: 
''Off-duty professional mariners are included as well if they are on the vessel and they might be needed in an emergency to protect passenger safety.''—[Official Report, 28 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 773.]
 The Committee will note that we have not at this stage sought to clarify that remark through a probing amendment, subject to what the Minister has to say. I think I enjoy a warm relationship with the Under-Secretary—

John Spellar: That's no good; I'm replying.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister will benefit from any assistance that our relationship may bring.
 I have only a summary analysis of comments made on the consultation paper. I am sure that the Committee would expect any Minister to meet with industry representatives regularly in preparing for the Bill. I meet with representatives of the National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers fairly regularly. So it came as some surprise to me to learn that the Secretary of State met them last September and it is almost a year since the Under-Secretary last met them. 
 Several kind invitations have been extended to meet the executive council of the Chamber of Shipping. Unfortunately, those appear not to have been convenient, and I record our disappointment that the clause appears to have been drafted against that backdrop. Perhaps the Minister of State can come to the Under-Secretary's assistance. Had there been more regular meetings, we might not have needed the clarification that we seek with the amendments. 
 We should pause to ask how the Government propose to define a professional seaman on a ship while on duty. The Secretary of State said that the 
 alcohol testing provisions would apply to those who might be needed in an emergency to protect passenger safety. In the spirit of helpfulness and co-operation, perhaps the Minister has come up with some easy formula about a first on duty, a second on duty of those who find themselves on a ship and who may need to be called upon in an emergency. I hope that the Minister will find that our definitions are helpful. The addition of the words 
''any person employed in any capacity aboard a vessel, including''
 before the words 
''a professional master of a ship, a professional pilot of a ship, and a professional seaman in a ship while on duty''
 will clarify the definition. I also hope that the definition of 
''a person whose primary and main function is the command of a vessel carrying passengers for a fee''
 will differentiate between professional and non-professional members of staff.

John Randall: I have a few queries, which I am sure that the Minister will be able to clarify, apart from those put forward by my hon. Friend. Presumably, ''professional'' means somebody who is paid. Does it mean somebody with qualifications or does it cover anybody? I must say to my hon. Friend that although our probing amendment serves a useful purpose, I am concerned that if we were to press it to a vote, in which we were successful through the strength of our arguments—[Interruption.]—the definition of any person employed in any capacity aboard a vessel might be too wide-ranging. If one considers a cruise ship, for example, there might be lecturers or entertainments officers. [Interruption.]

Jimmy Hood: Order. The Chairman is having difficulty listening to the hon. Gentleman because hon. Members are chattering.

John Randall: Thank you, Mr. Hood.
 We want to ascertain exactly whom the definition would encompass. Although no one would recommend that anybody on board a ship should be the worse for wear, we may be talking about people whose positions do not involve safety. We should wait to hear what the Minister has to say, but I should like clarification whether the key issue is being paid or having qualifications.

John Spellar: It is some time since I was an Opposition Whip, and I am surprised to hear the Opposition Whip speaking today—times have changed since I was a lad. Given the short numbers of Conservative Members, I suppose that necessity has driven that process.
 In spite of that change in the role of Whips, I was pleased to hear the intervention by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) because it was the proper voice of conservatism. I found it strange to hear the Conservative Opposition trying to be more restrictive than is required by the circumstances. It is obviously right, and not only because of public inquiries, that people who are critical to safety should be able to give their best performance at the appropriate time, but I find it strange that a Conservative Opposition should 
 press us to be more restrictive than is necessary. I am not sure whether that is another side of the emerging split inside the Conservative party, but I am sure that that point will be clarified. 
 I do not understand why the comedian on board a cruise ship should be denied more than a couple of drinks while he is not entertaining the assembled company. It is important that those people who have a job to do—their position is defined in the legislation—and who are critical to safety fully understand that, either from the point of view of their fellow crew members or if they are off-duty but have a safety role to play in the event of an incident. I find it strange that other crew members might be put into that position. 
 On commercial ships, particularly on long voyages, the ship constitutes home for its crew. In modern shipping, the ship often stays in port for a short period, then moves off. It would be excessively onerous and an unreasonable burden on the crew if the prescribed alcohol limits were applied to all crew members at all times while a vessel is at sea. It is right when they are on duty. ''On duty'' begins when someone is at the beginning of a watch or a roster. 
 That is why we deliberately distinguish between professionals who are or should be considered to be on duty and those who are not. That is clear in the legislation. It is a common-sense, practical approach that was well put by the hon. Member for Uxbridge.

Don Foster: The Minister makes a powerful case for the categorisation that has been selected and included. He specifically referred to the crucial importance of the safety-critical nature of the jobs involved. I wonder whether the Department has considered other safety-critical posts that may not be on board ship. I wonder, for example, whether the Government have considered harbourmasters. If not, why have they rejected the inclusion of harbourmasters?

John Spellar: I await clarification on that. Subject to that clarification, if a harbourmaster is on a ship, he will be a potential master of the ship. He would also be acting in the role of crew—

Don Foster: He's not on the ship.

John Spellar: Ah! It would depend whether someone was on duty. The crucial issue is whether someone would be liable to be engaged on duty. This is exactly the right procedure to adopt: to consider where a role is and is not safety-critical. We hope we have defined that issue. We are certain that the amendment does not cover it adequately.

Don Foster: I understand what the Minister says. However, the heading of this clause relates to shipping and is about the protection of passengers and so on. Clearly a number of people other than those on board at any one time will nevertheless, while off the ship, have posts that are critical to the safety of shipping. I gave the example of harbourmasters, who would not be on the ship but would have specific responsibility for ships entering a particular harbour or port. I could have given the example of staff on duty in lighthouses.
 I am merely asking why a number of other categories of persons who have responsibility in respect of shipping are not included in the legislation.

John Spellar: Quite simply, they will be covered by health and safety or ports legislation where relevant. This provision deals with ships and the transport side. If for any reason they were involved or engaged in any form of navigation, they would be covered by the Bill. Those who are land-side will be covered by the appropriate ports or health and safety legislation.

Anne McIntosh: I am taken by the example given by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) because, in certain cases, particularly ''in an emergency''—the precise words used by the Secretary of State on Second Reading on 28 January, I would have thought that the harbourmaster could be deemed to have a safety-critical role. In a new piece of legislation it would make sense for those matters to be codified in one piece of legislation. That would help both the Committee, and those who will work with the legislation.

Don Foster: The hon. Lady will be aware that existing legislation covering those working on board ship already addresses the issue of their not being under the influence of alcohol and drugs. The Bill adds prescribed alcohol limits to that legislation.
 There is one point that I hoped that the Minister might have addressed; the hon. Lady may also like to comment on it. The Minister is right that legislation already covers harbourmasters and those who operate lighthouses, but I do not believe that prescribed alcohol limits have been added to it. Since we are discussing that matter in the Bill, there could be an opportunity also to update those other pieces of legislation.

Anne McIntosh: The hon. Gentleman and I are as one on the issue. We are specifically addressing the question of alcohol and any excess of alcohol in those who are charged with the safe operation of a ship or the safe passage of a ship. I do not know whether the Minister's lack of response to the points raised by the hon. Member for Bath was wilful or accidental, but there is still time for him to respond.
 I should like explore further the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge about whether a professional mariner should be identified by someone who has qualifications to sail. It could also be said that a professional mariner is a person employed or engaged in any capacity aboard a vessel, whereas a non-professional mariner—presumably a recreational mariner—would be an individual driving a vessel used for sport or leisure purposes. I should like to elicit from the Minister the difference in emphasis between a professional member of staff and a non-professional. It is a little silly of the Minister to say that we are looking to extend the provisions of this clause to a comedian or a lecturer on board a ship. We want to identify those who fall under the Bill and whose responsibilities and duties may be impaired through drink or drugs. Most of us would accept that a comedian's responsibilities and duties will be enhanced by the intake of alcohol, but I hope that none of us would expect a comedian or a lecturer 
 on board a ship to undertake any safety-critical functions.

Andrew Murrison: I tend to agree with my hon. Friend that entertainers cannot possibly be regarded as professional seamen, but presumably the contract under which they were employed would reflect that. I imagine that such a contract would differ substantially from that of a professional seaman.
 The crux of the matter is, however, the definition of a professional seaman. Would the hon. Lady agree with me that a steward, for example, should be included in that definition? I was, briefly, a steward in the Merchant Navy, and I would have regarded myself as being a professional seaman, because in an emergency I would have been required to steward passengers to lifeboats. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need more clarification?

Anne McIntosh: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I think that the Committee will benefit from the experience that he has brought to bear in that regard. That is the reason why we tabled the amendment; it would make the definition more precise. If the Minister is not minded to accommodate the amendment now, we shall return to it at a later stage. We offered assistance with the proposal that a professional person is someone carrying passengers for a fee. We did not hear whether it was fruitful.
 The bad news for the Under-Secretary is that the Minister chose not to come to his defence about the serious allegation that he has not met the august body NUMAST, its members, or its executive council for nigh on a year. The Bill was drafted during that period, in a not fully comprehensive and satisfactory form.

Don Foster: I hope that the hon. Lady will dwell at more length on the point made by her hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison), who said that his job while on board ship might have included taking action for passenger safety in the event of an accident. The hon. Lady will be well aware that the recommendations of the Hayes report on the proposal, which she will have read in great detail, specifically referred to that issue and talked about any member of the crew, including bar and catering staff, being called to assist in an emergency.

Anne McIntosh: I am most grateful for the hon. Gentleman's assistance, but his remarks did not hit the target, which was to persuade the Government to elucidate on the measure. We were told on Second Reading that off-duty professional mariners will be included if they are on the vessel, as stewards most surely are. They may be needed in an emergency to ensure passenger safety.
 It may help the Committee to know that I take pride in the fact that I served very briefly—six days—as a lieutenant commander on HMS Cumberland in the Gulf. 
 I understood that the role of a steward in the Merchant Navy was similar to that of a guard on a train: in the event of an accident or a disaster, the 
 guard on a train or the steward on a ship, is called upon to attend to the passengers. 
 I hope that the Minister will see the logic of the amendments in seeking to differentiate between ''professional'' in clause 75 and ''non-professional'' in clause 77. A comedian and a lecturer clearly fall within clause 77, although that is subject to the debate on that, which I do not want to pre-empt. Opposition Members, including the Liberal Democrats, agree that the Hayes report and the recommendations of Justice Clarke and the words of the Secretary of State on Second Reading all point to the clause being defective. In the most helpful way, we seek to assist the Government in that regard. We will not press the amendment to a Division as we shall return to the matter on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move amendment No. 48, in
clause 75, page 31, line 19, leave out 'fishing vessel' and insert 'ship'.

Jimmy Hood: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 49, in
clause 76, page 31, line 36, at end add—
'(5) Where a person is charged with an offence under this section in respect of the effect of a drug on his ability to carry out duties on a ship, it is a defence for him to show that— 
 (a) he took the drug for a medicinal purpose on, and in accordance with, medical advice, or 
 (b) he took the drug for a medical purpose and had no reason to believe that it would impair his ability to carry out his duties.'.

Anne McIntosh: Clause 75 includes the defence for a person on a fishing vessel that
''he took the drug for medical purposes on, and in accordance with, medical advice, and . . . had no reason to believe that it would impair his ability to carry out his duties.''
 We believe that that defence should be available regardless of the type of vessel. The amendment is intended to probe why a fishing vessel has been singled out and whether the Government intend that the defence will still stand. I do not think that that is a natural shadow of what is happening in the sporting world, but do the Government intend the defence to pertain to other vessels? 
 Amendment No. 49 is consequential and self-evident. It would clarify the situation, on which we felt that the Bill was unnecessarily silent. It raises the question of what type of drug and alcohol testing will be used. Will the Minister share with us the Government's conclusions about the most efficient way of testing? He will be aware that a large debate is taking place in all transport sectors about whether urine or blood testing is the most efficient. A sample of oral fluid—saliva for example—collected on a swab cannot be divided into two so that the donor can challenge the result by having the stored half reanalysed. What method have the Government deemed the most efficient in drug and alcohol testing? 
 By way of probing amendments, we seek first some justification for why a fishing vessel is specifically referred to. Does that mean that a fishing vessel is not deemed to be a vessel for the purposes for the other 
 subsections of clause 75? Secondly, we want confirmation that the traditional defence will still stand, which is set out in amendment No. 49.

John Spellar: Section 117 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 is repealed by schedule 7 of the Bill. That section currently makes it an offence for a seaman employed or engaged in a United Kingdom fishing vessel to be under the influence of drink or drugs while on board the vessel if his capacity to fulfil his responsibility to the vessel or carry out the duties of his employment or engagement is impaired. The section allows fishermen a defence if they have taken a drug for medicinal purposes. We want them to keep the defence, and clause 75(5) preserves the existing situation without adding to it. The amendments would extend the medicinal defence to on-duty professional mariners as a whole, which we view as unnecessary.
 Commercial vessels whose time at sea is comparable to that of deep sea fishing vessels are likely to have larger crews. That would enable another crew member to take over the duties of anyone affected by a medicinal drug. Commercial vessels with smaller crews are likely to be operated on shorter voyages. In those circumstances, crew members who are unwell but still working should be able to wait until going ashore before taking medication that they know will impair their performance. Not doing so would risk not only their own health, but the safety of the vessel. In that light, I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw the amendment.

John Randall: I am not certain that I heard the Minister correctly. Did he say that someone should wait before going ashore if they had reason to believe that it would impair their ability to do their job? Let us deal with fishing vessels first and move on to others later. The key point is what happens if someone does not realise that his ability will be impaired? The defence would be that the person taking the drug for medicinal purposes might not have been aware of any effect. Some medicines state, ''Caution, may cause drowsiness: do not drive or use machinery''. The person taking such a drug would have to prove that they did not know about its detrimental effects.
 I do not understand why the provision should apply specifically to fishing vessels. I understand the importance of the size, but some vessels might have a crew comparable to that of a fishing vessel, so is it not unfair that a person cannot use that defence simply because he has not gone fishing. I am making the point rather crudely, but it seems odd that a defence for someone on a fishing vessel does not apply elsewhere. The person taking the drug might not be aware of its effect. Such is my main concern, which has not yet been fully dealt with.

Jimmy Hood: Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but interventions should be interventions and therefore brief.

John Randall: Sorry, I thought that the Minister had sat down.

John Spellar: No, I was taking a worthwhile intervention from the hon. Gentleman. I thought that I had explained the key issue, but I am happy to reiterate it. The crew on shipping vessels tend, by nature of their employment, to be away for longer than crews of other vessels of comparable size. That is the difference. Vessels undertaking long-distance journeys are likely to have larger crews and will be able to alternate watches and duties to help those requiring medicines. Other vessels of comparable size might operate in coastal waters on shorter journeys, which is why with good reason we retained the exemption for fishing vessels and carried it through into the Bill rather than extending it further.

John Randall: I understand what the Minister is saying, but if a pleasure craft is on a short journey for a couple of hours around a harbour and a crew member feeling unwell takes some cough mixture without realising that it will have an effect on him, why should he be discriminated against to a greater extent than someone on a fishing vessel? As I said, the defence would be that it was not done intentionally.

John Spellar: The defence is in two parts—either he took a drug for medicinal purposes on and in accordance with medical advice, or he took the drug and had no reason to believe that it would impair his ability. I take the point that the situation is different. It is right to have a defence for those with limited crews who might be away for some time and whose members, if they were medically impaired, would pose a risk to other crew members because they might be unable to perform their roles. That is a practical example of why it is right and desirable the follow the existing legislation, which makes a sensible differentiation, rather extending it further.

Don Foster: Is the Minister implying that anyone who operates in a safety-critical position on a small-crewed vessel other than a fishing vessel should not, under any circumstances, take any drug? In the vast majority of cases, the second defence is critical—the person takes the drug having no reason to believe that it will impair ability. From what the Minister has said, nobody should take anything whatsoever when they are in such situations, regardless of their medical conditions.

John Spellar: No, the Bill does not say that at all. It might be a common medicinal drug that the individual has taken many times and he is fully aware of any impact, or it could be one for which it is clear what any side effects will be. The hon. Gentleman could be right in that there might be a narrow grey area such as the one that applies in the sporting field. Where there is uncertainty, prudence is the best guide. There must be a number of drugs whose side effects—or lack of them—are well known. Similarly, an individual who has taken a drug often and is not aware of any adverse affects would obtain the medicinal advantage without suffering any side effects that would impair his ability to operate the craft. In those practical terms, this preserves a common-sense exemption to deal with the particular circumstances of fishing vessels compared with commercial craft.

Anne McIntosh: I can see where the Minister is trying to go with this. All of us without having taken a
 drink have in our bodies a certain amount of a substance—ether or ethanol, I think—and certain drugs can make it appear that one has consumed an amount of alcohol by increasing that substance. As the hon. Member for Bath and my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge have said, while the Government recognise that that is a defence, in practice it might not be so clearly understood. The ship becomes the person's home. If he has a serious medical condition he might depend on certain drugs, but if he has a doubt about his position under these provisions, he might feel less inclined to take those drugs while on duty. That could damage his performance because he will be more concerned about his medical condition than he might otherwise have been.
 I was grateful to the Minister for his explanation. The two probing amendments have served their purpose. If I have understood correctly that a fishing vessel will be covered in the same way for both purposes, I hope that we can, elsewhere in the Bill, consider the best form of testing. In the circumstances we will not seek to press the matter further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: The genesis of the legislation, particularly clause 75 in part 4, has taken some time. After the marine accident investigation branch inquiry into the Marchioness disaster in 1989, the Government asked John Hayes to conduct a wider inquiry into river safety. The Hayes report, which was published in 1992, made 22 recommendations, of which recommendation 18 was that
''The Department [of Transport], after appropriate consultation, should promote legislation to introduce a breath test similar to that applying to motor vehicle drivers which would apply to the skippers and crew of all vessels.''
 That acknowledges the fact that, apart from the general provision in section 58 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, there is no specific legislation to regulate alcohol consumption in the maritime industry. Section 58(1)(b) makes it an offence for 
''the master of, or any seaman employed in, a ship which— 
 (i) is registered under the law of any country outside the United Kingdom; and 
 (ii) is in a port in the United Kingdom or within United Kingdom waters while proceeding to or from any such port.''
 to endanger his ship or other ships by being—as set out in section 58(3)(b)— 
''(b) under the influence of drink or a drug at the time of the act or omission.''
 At present, no maximum blood alcohol limit is specified. At the close of the resumed inquest into the Marchioness disaster in April 1995, the inquest jury made 12 recommendations on ship and river-boat safety, one of which was that 
''Legislation should be introduced to set maximum blood alcohol levels for seamen on duty. In the event of an accident, all crews should be breathalysed and tested for drugs as a matter of urgency.''
 The then Government undertook to give urgent and careful consideration to all the recommendations. In 
 January 1996, they made public their considered response, in which they said that they were carefully considering the need for legislation. 
 We welcome the proposal to make it an offence for professional mariners to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol—particularly alcohol—when carrying out their duties. Clause 75(3) states: 
''A person to whom this section applies commits an offence if the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit.''
 I wish to seek clarification from the Minister on that matter. 
 Part 3 of the Bill was also subject to consultation and was on the Department's website. When we debated part 3, I found it very useful to have a summary of the responses to the consultation paper. The Government reply to the responses was also posted on the web. That was immensely helpful in considering that part of the Bill. It is therefore a little disappointing that although one can find the consultation paper and the invitation to consult on the web, we are hampered by neither the summary of the responses to the consultation on the proposed legislation to combat alcohol abuse at sea, nor the Government's response to it, being on the web. 
 This morning I contacted the Department, which directed me once again to the House of Commons Library. This time, the business and transport section of the Library has been most helpful, but for the purposes of consideration of this part of the Bill, I have only the slimmest summary of responses in a tabular form, and it is difficult to get an overall view of the responses to the consultation from the industry and individuals. If they go to the expense of carrying out such a consultation, I urge the Government to make the responses as widely available as possible. 
 Will the Minister tell us which form of testing for the presence of alcohol is likely to be the most effective and the speediest? I presume that testing for alcohol in the breath would be carried out using a breathalyser, but which is better—a breathalyser, or blood or urine samples? Have the Government considered using oral samples, whereby samples of oral mucosal transudate are collected from the inner side of both cheeks using a swab. I gather from recent articles that that was found to be less reliable and effective than blood testing. As studies of this were carried out in July and August last year, the Government have had plenty of time to form a more considered view. 
 I return to the point about a master, pilot or seaman being considered professional only if he acts as in that capacity in the course of business or employment. In our little debate on the earlier amendments, the Minister simply said that one can prove that a professional seaman in a ship is on duty or deemed to be about to respond to an emergency in which he might called upon to protect passengers by looking at the roster which is in common usage in our merchant shipping fleet.

Andrew Murrison: That simply would not do. Self-evidently, in the event of an emergency at sea, all employed crew members on board would be expected
 to help out. We have dealt quite well with entertainers and lecturers, but we have not yet dealt with people such as stewards.

Anne McIntosh: It is appropriate to ask the Minister to set out the position of stewards. A steward could not possibly be treated in the same way as a master pilot of a ship, but would be considered to be a professional seaman. He is more operational and has a greater safety role than a comedian or a lecturer, whom we have dismissed for the purposes of this clause. Can the Minister confirm what the criteria would be and whether the Government feel that there is a need to be more specific in that respect? We perceive such a need.
 There was quite a debate at the time of the Marchioness disaster. We have referred to both the Tavistock Institute and the Hayes reports. The Marine Safety Agency of the then Department of Transport commissioned research from the Tavistock Institute into the problem of alcohol and drug abuse at sea. The main objectives were to measure the magnitude of the problem, to examine how it was dealt with in shipping and related industries and, in the light of the information thereby gathered, to advise on legislative and/or advisory ways forward. 
 The subsequent report, entitled ''The Tavistock Research Institute Report MSA {**hash**} 346: Alcohol and Drug Abuse Aboard Shop'', was published in May 1995. It concluded that an understanding of the problem was difficult and complex because of the anecdotal nature of most of the evidence, the varying attitudes of different parts of the industry, and the limited number of statistical sources. It stated that a truer picture would require longer-term research. However, the main thrust of the institute's findings suggested that the extent of alcohol abuse varies according to the different type of craft surveyed, being low to non-existent on commercial vessels operated by oil companies, ferry companies, container and dry cargo operators with active alcohol policies, of medium severity in other deep-sea fleets, and of high severity in small merchant fleets and fishing boats. 
 The Tavistock Institute further suggested that, were legislation to be enacted, it should include a definition of due diligence—the degree of responsibility that it would be reasonable to expect companies and individuals to have for tackling the problem—and a technically defined and legally enforceable level of impairment for alcohol. In the institute's view, any legislation should apply only to ships in United Kingdom waters, and testing should be carried out by the local police. 
 The Transport and Works Act 1992, which covers railways, contains a defence of due diligence as well as provisions relating to offences by corporate bodies. Perhaps the Minister will take this opportunity to explain whether the Government have decided to include the defence of due diligence. If they have, will he direct us to the relevant part of the Bill so that we know when to have the debate? If not, will he tell us why the shipping industry, with professional mariners, has been treated differently from the railways? 
 There were compelling reasons why the Government had to take action. One was that identified by the Tavistock Institute study: many shipping companies have introduced their own alcohol policies, which indicates their belief that action was needed. Legislation would have an effect on those employed by companies that have not decided to take action, but I am sure that the Minister will confirm that the Bill will apply one policy to all ships, whether or not their owners have a policy of alcohol testing. 
 The Government are right to consider it anomalous that blood alcohol levels are specified for road users and operators and crew of inland and airborne public transport but not for shipmasters and crew. It would be difficult to argue that there is an intrinsic difference between the transport modes to support such a disparity. Impairment through alcohol can lead to accidents at sea in the same way as it can elsewhere. The regrettable Marchioness disaster is indicative of that.

Andrew Murrison: I am listening with great interest to my hon. Friend, and as ever she is right. However, will she reflect on the difference between someone being behind the wheel of a car at 80 mph on a motorway and someone being on the bridge of a ship, where things happen much more slowly?

Anne McIntosh: I have driven a ship—I drove HMS Cumberland for a remarkably short time, and I am happy to say that it did not crash.

John Randall: Where is it now?

Anne McIntosh: According to the latest information that I could elicit from the Government in written answers, HMS Cumberland is part of the current operation in the Gulf. She is a magnificent vessel and I wish her Godspeed. The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) and I certainly enjoyed our opportunity to go aboard, and I think that we conducted ourselves well—the Committee would be proud of our conduct. I might have driven the ship better than I prepared the vegetables, but that is a personal view.

Linda Perham: I thank the hon. Lady for paying tribute to me; I, too, was a temporary lieutenant commander. However, I want to return to the point that the hon. Member for Westbury made about at the speed at which things happen on a ship. I was on board the cruise ship Norwegian Dream when it was in collision in the channel on 24 August 1999. That ship was the largest ever to go through the Kiel canal, and we were in collision with a cargo vessel that was the size of the QE2. That happened extremely quickly late at night. Despite the point that the hon. Gentleman made and my experiences on HMS Cumberland with the hon. Lady, my view is that things can happened extremely quickly both at sea and on the road.

Anne McIntosh: I agree with both the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury. If memory serves, in the case of the Marchioness, the failure of the lookout was ultimately deemed to be the cause, so the points raised are pertinent. In relation to what my hon. Friend said, if one is alone and driving a car
 recklessly down a motorway, one can cause death or injury to other road users. That danger is compounded on ships, especially the cruise ships to which the hon. Lady referred, and other such large vessels, because one would then be a professional mariner carrying passengers for a fee and one would therefore have a duty of care to those passengers.

Andrew Murrison: The point that I was trying to make is that there appears to be an empirical comparison between roads and sea transport in the Bill. Although that might be convenient, there is no real evidence base for making that direct comparison, because transportation at sea is quite different from transportation on our roads. Does my hon. Friend agree with that?

Anne McIntosh: Yes. That is a fair comment, and I shall be interested to hear precisely what the Minister thinks about it.

Don Foster: Even if the hon. Lady agrees with the hon. Member for Westbury, can she say where that would lead us? Does she believe, for example, that the alcohol limit for people on board ships should be radically different from that which applies to those driving cars?

Anne McIntosh: It comes down to what we have said about quality of life and safety. Standards should be high for each mode of transport. I am sure that we shall have an opportunity to consider that issue later in the Committee in relation to later amendments.

Andrew Murrison: I might be able to help a little. We need to know the Minister's justification for establishing the limits in question. Has he done that merely out of convenience—the limits happen to be same as for roads—or is there some evidence base that is driving forward the limits for transport at sea?

Anne McIntosh: To dwell for a moment on the terrible tragedy that I believe lies behind the provision, 51 people died in the Marchioness pleasure boat disaster on the River Thames. Lord Justice Clarke published his report from the public inquiry. In August 1989—almost 14 years ago—the Marchioness with 132 people enjoying a birthday party on board sank after a collision with the dredger Bowbelle. The skipper of the Bowbelle was acquitted of failing to maintain a proper lookout after a second jury had failed to reach a verdict. The marine accident investigation branch report of August 1991 said that the failure of the lookout on both ships was the immediate cause of the tragedy. The Hayes report was published in January 1991, after an inquiry into river safety conducted by the general secretary of the Law Society, John Hayes. In February 1992, the coroner confirmed that the hands of more than 25 victims had been removed.
 I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is the real reason for those provisions. I lend my support to them, but the Minister will have heard what hon. Members have said on both sides, and the questions that have been raised. I take this opportunity to let him respond.

Don Foster: I shall be brief. We firmly support the measures. Although we raised queries through a number of amendments, we are supportive of what the Government seek to do. The Minister will acknowledge that the measures are long overdue, but they are welcome none the less.
 I have only one question. If get a clear answer from the Minister now, it will prevent us having to ask similar questions on a number of subsequent clauses. The work being done in relation to safety on various modes of transport has tended to focus on alcohol abuse, because we have known about that for rather longer than we have known about drug abuse. Indeed, detailed standards are now prescribed on alcohol abuse, although, as a subsequent amendment will demonstrate, I believe that we have chosen the wrong ones. Nevertheless, we have very detailed knowledge of the subject. 
 The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) properly raised questions about the various testing regimes. The sad truth is that we have less knowledge about the impact of drugs on people's ability to fulfil safety-critical functions in relation to marine activity and aviation and on the roads and railways. Will the Minister tell us a little more about the background to the equivalent prescribed limits for drugs and what testing regime is intended, as there is an absence of detail in the Bill? I give way to the hon. Member for Uxbridge.

Jimmy Hood: Order. The hon. Gentleman says that he is willing to give way, but I understand that he is intervening on the hon. Member for Vale of York.

Anne McIntosh: No, I had finished.

John Randall: There is another question. I agree with the hon. Member for Bath about drugs, but another thing that is not mentioned—it probably does not happen so much—is solvent abuse.

Don Foster: Indeed. That will depend on the definition of the drugs, and the Bill is a bit short in that regard. Perhaps the Minister can answer that question.
 I have heard it said by some Labour Members that there are difficulties in testing for drugs. We have grown used to the breathalyser as the first check on alcohol abuse, but the Minister should be aware that a number of other countries already have solutions to the drug-testing problem. I referred some weeks ago to my visit to Sweden, where I saw some of the work being done there on transport safety. I spent a considerable time discussing drug-testing procedures. People there do not seem to think that it is a problem. Indeed, I have with me a pupilometer, which the road transport police use in Sweden. It works along the same lines as the breathalyser. An allegedly guilty person is first checked with the pupilometer and, if necessary, is then given further tests; samples are taken, just as they are for alcohol. The Bill gives clear details of what happens in respect of alcohol, but not in respect of drugs. It would be good to hear a little more about the Government's thinking on that question.

John Spellar: I am pleased to reply to the debate. It is right to say that we do not have a defined procedure for testing for drugs. That is generally agreed to be a problem, which is why the Bill deals with it through enabling provisions. As we develop a scientifically agreed drugs testing system, we shall be able to put those provisions into operation. We shall then be able to define the appropriate limits and units of measurement. It will be generally agreed, subject to medical advice, but medical science is not yet at that stage. However, we want to include those provisions in the Bill so that once we get an agreed testing procedure, we can take it on board.
 Notwithstanding that, it will still be an offence to be in charge of a vessel while under the influence of drugs, and there are rough and ready, but less precise, measures for dealing with that. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Bath that there is a gap, which is the result of the state of technical advance, but it is one that we hope will be remedied. As the hon. Gentleman noted, other police forces and medical institutions have done a lot of work, and we hope to be able to take advantage of that. 
 There are well established procedures for testing breath and blood for alcohol in the automotive sector, and the marine sector would closely follow that. Existing ways of measuring the impairment of performance will enable us to say that someone is not fit to be in charge of a vessel or a vehicle. 
 The hon. Member for Vale of York mentioned the report of the Tavistock Institute. She will agree, I am sure, that it was relatively inconclusive. However, the Marchioness inquiries provided the basis for consultation on testing. 
 Questions were also asked about stewards, but they would be included under the designation of professional seamen. It has been mentioned several times today that members of the crew in that position should be alert at all times when at sea. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North said, such incidents can happen quickly and have serious or even catastrophic results. 
 The hon. Member for Vale of York asked about the consultation documents on the website. I understand that the consultation that she referred to took place in 1996, before the Department had a website, and that that material was appropriately placed in the House of Commons Library. I am glad that the hon. Lady was able to make use of it. 
 It gives me pleasure to commend the clause to the Committee. 
Miss McIntosh rose—

Jimmy Hood: Order. We have had a fair discussion on clause stand part, unless the hon. Lady is raising something entirely new.

Anne McIntosh: It is entirely new, Mr. Hood, as you would expect.

Jimmy Hood: Indeed, as I would expect.

Anne McIntosh: As ever, I wish to be helpful. I have a copy of the Department for Transport consultation paper on possible legislation to combat alcohol abuse
 at sea. Responses to that consultation were to have been treated confidentially, but I thought that the Government might give us a summary of them. Furthermore, responses were required by 31 March 2000, and it is not customary for the Department for Transport to take four years to reply to such consultation. It certainly breaks with tradition.
 If those responses had genuinely have gone missing as a result of a change of Department responsibility, it would have been understandable, albeit regrettable, especially as the Bill is trying to deal with that very problem. I am slightly surprised that the Minister, being, as he is, in such an elevated position, is not aware that such a consultation had invited comments by 31 March 2000. That is not so long ago that the Department would have got rid of the responses. 
 I have some other new information that I wish to share with the Committee. Being an avid reader of the Order Paper, as are other members of the Committee, something important came to my attention yesterday. Curiously, it was the day before we were due to debate these clauses—indeed, we might already have started if we have trotted through the preceding clauses at a faster pace. I was mildly surprised to see in the Order Paper a written ministerial statement—yet another example of the detestable little gimmicks that the Government use—about the subject before us this afternoon. 
 That statement was on the implementation of the recommendations of the reports of the inquiry into Thames safety and the formal investigation into the loss of the Marchioness. It was made by none other than the Minister's hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport. I raise the subject now because, in view of the Minister of State's reply, I thought that I should give him the opportunity to mention it. I have twice raised the matter, and the hon. Member for Bath has joined me in requesting details of the form of testing that will be used. It is appropriate at this stage of the Committee's proceedings that we should be able to discuss the matter. 
 That written ministerial statement was laid before Parliament and was referred to in the Order Paper, and a copy has been placed in the Library. This is the third update since November 2001, and it is about progress on manning and training on passenger ships, the introduction of a safety code for domestic passenger ships, and the fact that the London coastguard now co-ordinates all search and rescue activities—but it does not help us with what I would have though was of most interest to the Committee: precisely what type of testing will be used. Even though Ministers frequently avail themselves of such opportunities, it does not add to the sense of the open government that we want. 
 The Bill refers to breath, blood or urine tests. I hope that that might include testing oral fluids on a mouth swab. The test is best known as the OMT—oral mucosal transudate—test. That is something to which we can return.

David Jamieson: For clarity, I have to say that it was the Labour Government who called the
 public inquiry into the Marchioness disaster—a substantial time after the event. If the hon. Lady is listening, we have undertaken regularly to provide comprehensive information to Parliament. I am sorry that she is pouring scorn on the Government's efforts to provide Parliament with information that the Government that she supported never provided.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 75 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 76 - Professional staff off duty

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Randall: Unlike many other members of the Committee, I have no nautical bent, although, like the Minister, I have an uncanny resemblance to Captain Birdseye, albeit a younger, slimmer one. I was once on a sailing vessel around Cape Verde islands in pursuit of my passion for bird-watching. That is the only time when I have been on such a vessel. The only way to be there was to be part of the crew, which was interesting for a landlubber from Uxbridge. I understood how important it was to know that something could crop up at any time when one is at sea. We talked about emergencies, but on a sailing vessel one can be suddenly woken from one's slumbers to find that the sails and rigging need to be changed. I found the various bits of rigging disconcerting at first. I am the first to say, ''Let people enjoy themselves and have a drink from time to time.'' From my limited experience, however, when a ship is at sea, all staff have a duty to ensure that they are in a fit state to handle anything that crops up.
 In our debate on the previous clause, we talked about fishing vessels. Does clause 75 apply, and does it need to apply, to professional staff off duty on fishing vessels? I presume that the same things apply whether they are on or off duty.

Anne McIntosh: My point is not dissimilar. It relates to an earlier discussion and the Secretary of State's remarks about off-duty professional mariners being treated as if they are on a vessel and might be needed in an emergency to protect passenger safety. I understood that it was not the mood of members of the Committee to accept the Minister's clarification. Will he confirm his remarks?
 Without being too pedantic, I understand the Government's intention behind the clause, which relates to professional seamen who I presume are qualified and paid to do the job and who, while off duty, would be charged in the event of an emergency, presumably for the protection of the safety of passengers. They will need guidance on the circumstances in which they will not experience a conflict. The Minister rightly said that, given the amount of time that professional mariners spend at sea, their off-duty time is precious to them and they need to be allowed to enjoy themselves as best they can. The Minister will say that the provisions refer only to those boats used in UK waters, so we are not 
 talking just about river boats or UK-registered ships. Any ship in UK waters might be subject to the provisions. It would be helpful if the Minister would confirm that. 
 Like my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge, I have some difficulty reading clause 76 in conjunction with clause 75. We are not satisfied that there is sufficient recognition. I repeat that we support the Government proposals. We are simply trying to be helpful and to probe the Minister, with a view to that clarification, at the earliest possible stage for the purposes of those who spend substantial amounts of time at sea and who feel that there is no conflict. They will want to know that when they are definitely off duty, they are not in danger of breaching the provisions and being prosecuted as a result of enjoying themselves and perhaps having a drink.

Andrew Murrison: For the avoidance of doubt, I should say first that I support clause 76. However, we need to go into this with our eyes open, because it extends the remit of the Bill quite substantially. We need to remember that, for seamen, their ship is often their home, and we are curtailing their liberties quite severely with this measure. We also need to appreciate the changing nature of life in the Merchant Navy in particular and, often, on cruise ships, which spend just a few hours in port and then continue on their voyage.
 Stipulating that seamen should limit themselves in the way proposed places quite a severe constraint on their ability to go ashore, enjoy themselves and relax. We are extending the spectrum of the measure from the man who drives the ship and is in charge—the captain of the vessel—who is, of course, at all times safety critical, to those who may at some point be safety critical in the event of an emergency. We are bracketing all those individuals together and treating them as one for the purposes of the legislation.

John Spellar: We are approaching agreement on this issue, but I want to stress something to Conservative Members. There has been a tendency in this quite useful section of the debate to merge clauses 76 and 75. Let us be clear: clause 76 applies to crew members who might, in the event of an emergency, be required to take action to protect the safety of passengers. Therefore, it does not apply to a considerable number of other carriers that do not have passengers on board. In this context, we are talking about passenger vessels or ferries. We are considering the fact that, in the event of an incident, those crew members may well be required to provide assistance for the protection and safety of passengers. That is important.
 We take account of many of the points that have been made about the fact that, for crew members, the ship is their home, although for many of the other ships that have been described, that is less likely to be the case. As I said, we are talking about ferry ships. That is different from UK vessels that sail the seven seas and, as the hon. Member for Westbury said, often call into ports briefly for rapid offloading and taking on of containers. That is precisely why we are trying to create a differentiation. We are focusing on where the measure is required for safety, rather than having a 
 blanket measure that would be an onerous burden on crew members. I commend the clause to the Committee. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 76 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 77 - Non-professionals

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move amendment No. 74, in
clause 77, page 31, line 38, after 'person', insert 
 ', subject to their being in a position to pose a substantial safety risk,'.

Jimmy Hood: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
 No. 75, in 
clause 77, page 32, line 10, at end insert 
 'after consultation with relevant trade associations and recreational boat user groups.'.
 No. 73, in 
clause 77, page 32, line 11, at beginning insert 
 'Subject to consultation with the relevant select committees of both Houses of Parliament and relevant trade associations and recreational boat user groups,'.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister helpfully explained in the previous debate that part 4 of the Bill relates to passenger-carrying vessels such as cruise ships. I am sure that the Committee would also view ferries, disco boats and riverboats as naturally coming within the definition and it is good that we have reached agreement.
 Clause 77 relates to non-professionals, who could be referred to as recreational mariners. The Government have not seen fit to draft an amendment and we have come up with one or two that might assist. I repeat that we would like to think of a professional mariner as someone employed or engaged in any capacity aboard a vessel, and a non-professional mariner as someone driving a vessel used for sport or leisure purposes. Is that how the Government are thinking? 
 On the basis of what I have said, we take it that clause 77 relates to recreational mariners sailing for sport and leisure purposes. I must be careful how I express this, but all of us who have been out on small vessels are accustomed to the fact that a certain amount of social drinking has always been part of the social scene. I do not say that I condone that, but I have witnessed it. There is no evidence of a widespread drunkenness problem in that context. Neither the Opposition nor the industry would condone anyone being in charge of a vessel while under the influence of drink or drugs. However, we tabled the amendments because poorly framed legislation could damage the recreational boating market. 
 I declare an interest in that while at the university of Edinburgh I joined the sailing club and enjoyed a few sailing trips off the firth of Forth and Loch Tay. Recently I went to the boat show at Earl's Court and I 
 pay tribute to the boat industry—particularly the British Marine Federation—for its work and its contribution to the national economy. I might aspire to own one of the gin palaces that were in dry dock at the boat show; there was an opportunity to board those magnificent vessels. If I seriously wanted one, I would be doing something more lucrative than my present job, but I can still feel envy. I have a British Waterways interest in my constituency and I hope that many will gain enjoyment from the recreation craft that ply the inland waterways of Vale of York and other parts of the United Kingdom. Many people buy narrow boats to use as holiday homes as an alternative to investing in a cottage in the country. 
 We seek to probe the Minister. Does he accept that professional mariners, whether circumventing the UK or plying our inland waterways, do not pose a substantial threat to safety? That is the purpose of amendment No. 74. We would not condone any drunkenness on any vessel, whether an inland waterway vessel or a recreational craft plying UK waters. The investigations in the reports that I referred to earlier and my remarks in relation to clauses 75 and 76 go to show that the evidence on larger ships was not conclusive. We pledge our support for the measures in this part of the Bill, but we want to send a warning shot across the Government's bows. I am sure that it is not the Minister's intention to suggest that recreational craft pose a substantial safety risk. He might, therefore, see fit to accept amendment No. 74. We were invited by the Under-Secretary to propose a draft definition of recreational mariner for the purposes of subsection (1). We would suggest that it is a person using a vessel in a private capacity for sport and leisure purposes along the lines that we have discussed. 
 It would be helpful if the Minister would either accept amendment No. 75 or confirm that, in normal circumstances, before measures are taken, there will be consultation with the relevant trade associations and recreational boat user groups—many organisations spring to mind, such as British Waterways, the British Marine Federation and even the British Ports Association. 
 The final amendment in this group is amendment No. 73, which relates to our hope that the Select Committees of both Houses of Parliament and the trade associations and recreational boat user groups would be consulted for the purposes of the provisions.

Tom Brake: I commend the hon. Lady's honesty. She made a veiled confession that she had indulged, or possibly over-indulged, in social drinking. Hon. Members will know that when one refers to other people's having indulged, frequently, one is actually referring to oneself.
 I want to probe the probing amendments.

Andrew Murrison: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I spring to the defence of the hon. Member for Vale of York who has been misrepresented. She quite rightly made the point that, in certain sections of the sea-going community, there is a culture of enjoying
 alcohol. I think that that is a matter of fact, and the hon. Lady was saying no more or no less than that.

Tom Brake: I am happy to have taken that intervention. It is, indeed, a matter of fact that certain people do indulge in alcohol.

Mark Lazarowicz: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I hope that the hon. Member for Vale of York will intervene or clarify her position as regards the inference that may reasonably be drawn from her earlier statement. Given that the incident may well have happened in my constituency, I would certainly feel obligated to report the matter to the procurator fiscal.

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. We had better not go too far down that route or Mr. Hood will intervene. I must concentrate on the amendments and probe them.
 The wording of amendment 74 requires clarification. Could every person on a leisure vessel not pose a substantial safety risk at some point? I therefore wonder whether that amendment is redundant. One could also question the use of the adjective ''substantial'' and whether one should not be looking at ''significant safety risks'' or even just ''safety risk'', rather than opting for ''a substantial safety risk''. 
 I seek clarification from the hon. Member for Vale of York on amendments Nos. 75 and 73. Amendment No. 75 states that consultation will be with, 
''relevant trade associations and recreational boat users groups'',
 whereas amendment No. 73 states that consultation will be with ''the relevant select committees''. It is not entirely clear to me why that is the case and why there could not also be consultation with Select Committees in relation to amendment No. 75.

John Spellar: We consider the amendments to be largely superfluous, and I hope to explain why. Amendment No. 74 seeks to explain in vague terms what will be provided with certainty by regulations made under clause 77(4). That is precisely so that we can deal with several of the variations, difficulties and complexities that have been rightly mentioned.
 The amendment as it stands goes well beyond the exceptions envisaged in clause 77(4) by seeking to except some recreational mariners from the requirements of clause 77, including the impairment provisions of clause 77(2). The Government intend to except certain classes of recreational mariners from the specific alcohol limit, but have no intention of allowing anyone whose ability is impaired through drink or drugs to be excepted from those provisions. 
 Amendment No. 74 also introduces uncertainty because it will inevitably be difficult to define the phrase 
''being in a position to pose a substantial safety risk'',
 as the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) highlighted. How substantial must the risk be before a recreational sailor falls within the terms of clause 77? The uncertainty will exist both in the minds of those who are regulated and the police, 
 who have the task of enforcing those provisions. Therefore, the inclusion of those words will be likely to undermine the legislation and the intentions of Parliament by leading to under-enforcement. 
 The regulations that we will bring forward in due course will aim to provide a greater degree of certainty by reference to clear parameters so that the extent of the exception from the prescribed limit will be clear, both to the recreational mariners themselves and the police. 
 I turn to amendments Nos. 73 and 75. As ever, the Government recognise the need to consult widely on the regulations that were made under clause 77(4). Departmental officials have already held preliminary discussions with the British Marine Federation and the Royal Yachting Association on the nature and extent of the proposed regulations. Officials will continue to consult those and other organisations that have an interest in the matter. 
 Amendments Nos. 73 and 75 are therefore superfluous and unnecessary. So, frankly, is the reference to consultation with the relevant Select Committees of both Houses. Clause 85(4) states: 
''Regulations under this Part shall not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution each House of Parliament.''
 In other words, it has to go through the affirmative resolution procedure. That will ensure that there is appropriate and sufficient parliamentary scrutiny. 
 Taking my comments into consideration, I hope that the hon. Lady will see fit to withdraw the amendment.

Anne McIntosh: In his summing up, the Minister spoke about exemptions. I had hoped to raise that subject on clause stand part, Mr. Hood, if you would be kind enough to allow that. It may be a pedantic way of doing it—that is the purpose of probing amendments—but I was trying to elicit from the Minister an acknowledgement that the risk faced by those on a little sailing boat, a dinghy or a yacht, or an inland waterway vessel, is not as great as that faced by those on vessels such as the Marchioness, which ended in tragedy, or the cruise ship that the hon. Member for Ilford, North enjoyed.
 To put the Committee's mind at rest, in my limited experience at Edinburgh university, which may be in the constituency of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith, I always went along with safety precautions. Rather than go skiing, I would enjoy an après-ski drink; and I thought it far more sensible to enjoy an après-sailing drink rather than a during-sailing drink. In all circumstances, one would wish to have one's wits about one, but I thought that what one observed about others enjoying themselves was worthy of note. 
 I welcome the fact that the British Marine Federation and the Royal Yachting Association were consulted. However, I urge the Minister to note the difference between consulting and listening and acting on what has been said. If all those concerns had been addressed, we would not have needed to table these three amendments. I did not hear the Minister mention the UK waters distinction, but I hope that we will have 
 another opportunity to discuss that. I hear the Minister's assurances, and we shall have further debates on various aspects of this part of the Bill, so I shall not press the amendment, but may return to the matter later. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move amendment No. 84, in
clause 77, page 32, line 3, at end insert— 
 '(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1) a ship includes a vessel used in a private capacity for sport or leisure purposes.'.

Jimmy Hood: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 77, in
clause 83, page 35, line 34, after 'ship', insert 
 ', including privately owned recreational vessels,'.

Anne McIntosh: I was a little premature earlier, Mr. Hood, and you were kind to me. We were invited to come forward with a definition of recreational or non-professional for the purposes of clause 77, and this is it. We humbly proffer amendment No. 84 for that purpose; it would neatly fit the bill. I hope that the Minister will accept the definition in the spirit in which it is made.
 Amendment No. 77 would add privately owned recreational vessels to the definition in clause 83, if the Minister does not consider that such vessels are included in the word ''ship''. It would apply when a constable was exercising his right of entry, which we shall discuss later. It may be helpful to clarify the clause by including the definition in the amendment.

John Spellar: I refer the Committee to clause 86(1)(a), the interpretation clause for part 4. It defines a ship to include every description of vessel used in navigation. That definition is taken from section 313 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 and is already wide enough to include all such vessels used in a private capacity for sport or leisure purposes.
 At present, the definition of a ship does not include craft that can properly be regarded as vessels used in navigation—instruments such as jet skis, for example. However, the Government intend to bring jet skis within the Merchant Shipping Act definition by means of an order to be made under clause 104 in part 6. 
 The Merchant Shipping Act definition of a ship, which has existed with only slight modification since 1894, was chosen deliberately in order not to create conflict and cause confusion with the body of merchant shipping legislation or with case law that has arisen from it on the precise nature of a vessel used in navigation. The amendments, which have enabled me to clarify how the Government intend to deal with the matter, are superfluous and could risk confusion with the existing, well-established definition of a ship. I therefore hope that the hon. Lady will ask leave to withdraw them.

Anne McIntosh: The probing amendments have served their purpose. It is disappointing that the
 Government are still working on aspects of a proposal that will be introduced in a separate regulation, which it would have been right and proper to discuss in Committee. Having been invited by the Under-Secretary to propose it, I am sorry that the Minister did not find our neat little definition of interest. It is a blow to us that he is not minded to consider it.
 In view of the Minister's explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Randall: I shall not detain the Committee, but I want to make a couple of points that would be better considered in a clause stand part debate.
 Will the clause take into consideration the equivalent on sea or water of air rage from passengers who cause safety problems because they have taken drugs or alcohol? 
 In a hideous twist of fate, I find myself in agreement with Liberal Democrat members of the Committee in that the number of passengers is immaterial. If a level of alcohol is dangerous, it applies equally to people driving cars, motor bikes, lorries, coaches or whatever. The alcohol and drug level is the same. [Interruption.] I was just thinking about pedal cycles, which are different, but I sometimes wish that they were not. I was not fortunate enough to be educated at Oxford or Cambridge, but I understand that cyclists pedalling around the city at night, sometimes the worse for wear, can be dangerous. Some of the better-educated people here could confirm that. 
 My next point is an echo of the trolley bus-tram question.

Anne McIntosh: Get back to that, yes.

John Randall: I would be interested to know where hovercraft fit into the equation.

David Cairns: We are making such splendid progress this afternoon that I thought that I would put my oar in. [Interruption.] I'm not waving, but drowning.
 If I understand Government amendment No. 80 correctly, clause 77 would apply in Scotland. I warmly welcome the clause and its applicability to Scottish waters. Yachting was once the preserve of the rich and the privileged, but it is changing.

Kelvin Hopkins: Having been a sailor myself, I know that a majority of them have always been socialists, so my hon. Friend is mistaken about the social composition of the sailing fraternity.

David Cairns: I said that it was the preserve of the rich, without making any comment on political views. I understand that rich socialists do exist, and I have heard that one or two working-class Tories are still around. I make no comment on people's political persuasion.
 My constituency is fortunate enough to include the Kip Marina, one of the most prestigious and largest in Scotland. Other marinas are planned in Gourock—adjacent to the station, with which my hon. Friend the 
 Under-Secretary is well acquainted—and in Greenock. As the sport develops and areas become busier, it is right to worry more about safety. It does not take much alcohol to dull the sensitivities and the greatest danger is to other yachtsmen and boat operators. As the waterways become more crowded, we must become more safety conscious. The clause deals with that problem sensitively and the Government are right to apply different levels of alcohol to different types of ship. I agree with the broad principle of what is effectively a breathalyser for users of boats. It is right to apply it in the interests of their own safety and that of others, so I warmly support the clause.

Andrew Murrison: I find myself in difficulty. I am aware that boating is a serious business and potentially dangerous for those in charge of the boats and those inside them. It is no trivial matter to drink and then go sailing. However, recreational sailing is carried out in many different ways in this country and the safety implications are correspondingly different. Our record in the UK is not particularly good in comparison with that of other European countries, particularly Germany, where a certificate is required to take charge of any size of boat for recreational purposes. One must also be examined to determine whether one is worthy of taking command of that vessel. The Germans would say that safety on their waters has improved as a result.
 I, for one, fully support any measure that is likely to improve safety on the water, but the Government have picked on one aspect of safety in their focus on alcohol and drugs in this measure, which seems incongruous. I am sure that the Royal Yachting Association would be happy to tell the Minister about the range of courses and examinations that it provides to certify people as safe and competent to take a pleasure boat to sea or on rivers and other waterways. Will the Minister say whether he took the RYA's advice when drafting the measure, which focuses on a very small area of safety of recreational mariners? Will he consider removing the measure and replacing it with a more comprehensive one that would promote the safety of recreational mariners, of which drugs and alcohol would be just a part?

Kelvin Hopkins: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, as I have experience of these matters as a sailor on the Norfolk broads since childhood. A small child once drove into the side of our boat and made a large hole with a motorboat. An inexperienced and unqualified young child will be unaware that sailing boats cannot reverse and steer out of the way as a motorboat can. There is a case for broadening safety concerns on water, and I do not want to make spontaneous suggestions for amendments at this stage. However, the Government should consider the age of those steering boats, especially motorboats. People believe that motorboats are easy to drive and do not appreciate the complexities and subtleties of sailing, especially against the wind in a narrow river, which can be very dangerous. Some of these boats are very large, heavy and potentially dangerous. The Government might want take account of those points in future legislation, rather than dealing with them today.

Anne McIntosh: This has been an interesting and welcome debate. Members of the Committee will remember what the Secretary of State said on 28 January on Second Reading. He stated:
''The principle has long been accepted that we ought to have measures to reduce the effect of drinking on the number of accidents.''
 He continued: 
''The Bill contains a power to exempt vessels with reference to the power of their motor, size or location. We want to consult on the repercussions, as we need to get the matter right. None the less, we are minded, for example, to exempt rowing boats, sailing dinghies and narrowboats. However, larger, high-powered recreational vessels such as jet-skis would probably be included. We want to strike the right balance to ensure that we get the legislation right. The proposed blood alcohol limit is the same as that which applies to motoring—80 mg.''
 That was the subject of a Liberal Democrat amendment, but we shall discuss that later. This is the time to discuss the exemptions; the Minister mentioned motor craft. I presume that he meant not only jet skis, but the high-powered motorboats—the Princesses and Sunseekers—that I have looked at longingly at annual boat shows at Earls Court and Southampton. The Secretary of State also said: 
''Clause 77 applies to what are referred to as non-professional mariners—people whose employment is not in the field.''
 I am not sure what that means, so will the Minister explain that? I did not know that there were any fields at sea. The Secretary of State continues: 
''We could have extended the provisions that apply to professional mariners to all boats, whatever their size and speed, but we considered that they should be proportionate. There is a difference between what is needed in relation to a large passenger-carrying ship with a professional crew and in relation to a man rowing a boat in a harbour. We will consult carefully on how best to deal with non-professional mariners.''—[Official Report, 28 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 773–4.]
 The Minister said earlier that consultation is continuing, and it is regrettable that as we debate clause 77 today, they have not reached a conclusion that could contribute to the framing of the regulations that will follow from it. I think that the Secretary of State was encapsulating the point that I was trying to make that recreational mariners in smaller craft such as rowing boats will not cause the same amount of damage or as large a safety threat as bigger, more powerful passenger-carrying vessels. 
 Subsection (1)(a) refers to 
''a person who . . . is on board a ship which is under way''.
 My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury was curious about that, and he is probably better versed in such matters than most Committee members, apart from the hon. Member for Ilford, North and me, who each drove HMS Cumberland for a short time, and the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) who is well versed on inland waterway craft. Why have the Government chosen that expression rather than what the industry might have preferred, which is ''a person who is driving or a ship that is being driven''? To mariners, there may be a difference even between a ship that is under way and one that is being driven. Will the Minister clarify the situation?

Andrew Murrison: I may be able to help. Mariners use two phrases—under way and making way. A vessel can be doing both at the same time or one or the other. ''Under way'' means that the vessel is at sea under power, and ''making way'' means that the vessel is moving forward but not necessarily under power.

Anne McIntosh: That is clear, then, but I would still prefer the phrase, ''driving or being driven''.

Don Foster: I wondered whether the hon. Lady thought that she was making way in her speech.

Anne McIntosh: I thought that I was making way until the hon. Member for Bath stood up, although it is always a pleasure to take an intervention from him.
 I pay tribute again to the people who drafted the helpful explanatory notes, which say, at page 24: 
''Clause 77 also provides a power to except non-professional mariners who do not pose substantial safety risks from the prescribed limits and the provision of specimens.''
 That provides another opportunity for the Minister to agree with me, and the Secretary of State, that recreational and non-professional mariners do not pose the same safety risks as professional mariners. 
 We also noted subsection (3), which says: 
''A person to whom this section applies commits an offence if the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit.''
 Again, I hope that as the Government are still taking advice and the jury is still out, they will consider oral swabs if they prove to be quicker and more definitive at proving that the prescribed limit has been breached. 
 On subsection (4), we always hesitate to give the Secretary of State the power to make regulations. I think that the Minister said that any regulations would be subject to the affirmative procedure. That at least is welcome, but we would have preferred matters to be specified in the Bill. 
 On exemptions, I referred briefly to the words of the Secretary of State. We would expect rowing boats, sailing dinghies and narrow boats to be excluded. I hope that the Minister will indicate what exclusions the Government are considering, because clearly this Committee will not consider the regulations that determine the power of a motor, the size of a ship or location. Some indication in that regard would be helpful.

John Spellar: I cannot improve on what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, which the hon. Lady quoted at some length. Our current thinking is that we may exempt those using rowing and paddle boats, sailing dinghies—including those carrying small outboard motors—and narrow boats operated on the canal network. It would not be our intention to exempt persons operating very large recreational vessels, high-powered motorboats or jet skis.
 The provision is designed to ensure a proportionate response, so that we are not being over-burdensome, but at the same time protecting other mariners and others in the water, notably swimmers. We are also talking in some cases about protecting people from themselves. We think that the measure is proportionate and will have the desired effect. I assure the hon. Lady that consultations continue and 
 that the regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, as defined in clause 85(4).

Anne McIntosh: That was very short.

Jimmy Hood: I was very impressed.

Anne McIntosh: Nothing ceases to surprise me, Mr. Hood.
 We should like clarification of why the phrase ''under way'' was chosen, rather than ''being driven''. In addition, the explanatory notes refer to ''substantial . . . risks'', and it would be helpful for us and the industry to know how that level of risk will be interpreted. 
 For the sake of completeness, we have referred to human rights measures and other aspects of the Bill. I hope that the Government are confident that the Human Rights Act 1998 will not act in a negative and destructive way in connection with the powers of the police to board craft and vessels for the purposes of clause 77. I hope that the Government are confident that the law will be applied to recreational boats, but will not contravene an individual's right to pursue a legitimate form of recreation. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 77 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 78 - Prescribed limit

Don Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in
clause 78, page 32, line 17, leave out subsection (1) and insert— 
 '(1) The prescribed limit for alcohol for the purposes of this part is— 
 (a) in the case of breath, 22 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres, 
 (b) in the case of blood, 50 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres, 
 (c) in the case of urine, 100 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres.'. 
I said earlier that it was clear that members of the Committee were thoroughly enjoying themselves and were desperate for our deliberations to continue for a longer time. Indeed, I noted with considerable interest—you may not be aware of this, Mr. Hood—that the message was being spreading around but a few minutes ago that the Government Whip was anxious for our deliberations to carry on until a slightly later hour this evening, because we were not making fast enough progress. However, so great was the enthusiasm of the Committee to carry on that more members of the Committee spoke immediately after the Government Whip said that than have spoken at any other time. I suspect, therefore, that there will be much interest in the amendment. 
 I shall set out the context. You will be aware, Mr. Hood, that I intend later to move an amendment, subject to your selection, to reduce the various prescribed limits for alcohol for car drivers. We are currently debating an amendment that relates to the prescribed limits for mariners. The Minister has already made it clear that he believes it appropriate for the same limit to apply to all modes of transport, and therefore it is also appropriate, in proposing this 
 amendment, to put it in line with our later amendment on car drivers. 
 The issue was raised with the Secretary of State on Second Reading; he was asked why a provision on prescribed alcohol limits for car drivers was not included in the Bill, and said: 
''We do not have any plans to reduce the limit below the current limit. That is why the matter is not addressed in the Bill.''—[Official Report, 28 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 773.]
 I hope that, as a result of discussions on this amendment or on our later amendment on car drivers, the Government may be prepared to think again. The Minister agreed earlier that there is growing evidence on alcohol abuse and driving. We must see whether we can benefit from experience gained over many years that has generated research showing that the time has come for a reduction in the alcohol limits.

Kelvin Hopkins: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about motoring, although we are not now discussing reducing the alcohol limits for motorists. In motoring, everything moves very quickly, and it is the reduction in reaction time that is crucial. In other areas of transport, particularly navigation, things move much more slowly and reaction time is not so crucial, although judgment may be impaired by alcohol. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it may be appropriate to have more relaxed limits for navigation than for motoring?

Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman refers back to a discussion that took place about half an hour ago when the hon. Member for Ilford, North referred to a marine incident in which she had been involved, and in which things happened very quickly. In that situation, fast reaction times were important. Nevertheless, I accept the broad thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument that a case could be made for differential limits.
 The hon. Gentleman will be aware that different limits are prescribed for certain aspects of aviation later in the Bill. However, I suggest that we should stick to the broad thrust of what the Minister has told us is the Government's intention—that there should be comparable levels across all modes of transport. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not only support our later amendment on car drivers, as he has indicated that he will do, but that he will support the amendment on those involved in safety-critical areas in shipping. 
 The growing research evidence available on alcohol and its impact on people's ability to react quickly suggests that the current alcohol limits are too high. Some will argue that there is no evidence of that in this country. However, I suggest that the Government share my view. On 2 February 1998 the Government published a document entitled ''Combating Drink Driving: Next Steps''. Section 13 expresses the problem extremely well. It reads: 
''The second problem group are drivers whose blood alcohol is below the current limit but whose ability to drive safely is nevertheless impaired. The current drink-drive limit is too high to catch all those who drive while impaired by alcohol. It has been recognised for some years that, for most drivers, impairment begins (and hence accident risk increases) at much lower levels than 80mg. It is possible to prosecute and convict drivers who produce a negative breath test but 
whose driving is obviously impaired, under the offence of ''driving while under the influence''. Though it is rare for such drivers to be prosecuted simply for driving while impaired, those whose driving causes a death are liable to be charged with the ''causing death'' offence even if their blood alcohol was found to be below the 80mg limit and significant numbers are convicted.''
 That specifically refers to driving, but the research is all about the impairment of a person's ability to react quickly to the sort of circumstances referred to in shipping by the hon. Member for Ilford, North. There is now significant evidence to suggest that our limits are too high in this country. Indeed other countries have already concluded that our limits are too high and they have lower limits. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position the Minister of State says that they have problems with enforcement. He should do greater research because that is not the case. Levels in Sweden are much lower. I had discussions in Stockholm with the head of the police section responsible for this issue. The Swedes have been successful in enforcing lower levels and there has been a corresponding reduction in the number of accidents, injuries and deaths on Swedish roads. 
 That evidence can mirror the situation in relation to the sea. It has long been established that alcohol can affect the safety-critical functions of people at sea. That is covered in existing legislation. It is rightly thought necessary to go a stage further in the Bill and to introduce a testing regime and statutory limits. If we are to do that, it would be better to set the limits at a level that would ensure greater safety at sea than the proposed limits would do. I will later move an amendment to reduce the current limits, and I hope the Committee will support the amendment to ensure that we have appropriate levels at sea. 
 I conclude with an admission. Just as on a number of occasions hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have pointed out typographical errors in what they have presented, there is sadly a typographical error in this amendment. The final line reads: 
''in the case of urine, 100 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres.''
 It should be 67 millilitres, the figure that appears in the amendment we have tabled in relation to driving. The Minister will doubtless have picked that up. The figures in the amendment would still be a significant improvement on the Government's proposal.

Anne McIntosh: I read the amendment with interest. I can see where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. The Secretary of State said on Second Reading that the Government wanted the same blood alcohol limit as for motoring, which is 80 mg per 100 ml. We have always considered that a higher standard is right for road transport because that is the transport context in which most injuries or deaths occur annually. Almost 1,000 people a year are killed on the roads and many more are injured. We regret that it was not considered appropriate to include road safety in the provisions, since statistics show that there is substantially more chance of being injured on the road than on railways, at sea or in an air accident.
 I hope that we can keep the limits under review. We are minded for the moment to support the 
 Government limits, rather than to support the lower limits in the amendment, with the proviso that, curiously, there will be some discrepancy. We have advocated equal levels of safety for all modes of transport, but there will now be three different sets of alcohol limits according to whether sea, road or air travel is used. I wonder whether the Government are comfortable with that. I am sure that the amendment is intended as a probing one, given that I am sure that the hon. Member for Bath understands that disasters on recreational craft, such as the Marchioness, are very rare. We do not want to go overboard.

Andrew Murrison: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York. It is bizarre that the hon. Member for Bath should confuse cars and boats. They are different, and the limits that have been suggested for motoring are well grounded in evidence. A huge amount of research has been done by the Transport Research Laboratory, and others, to establish those limits. The same research has not been done with respect to boats, and I agree with the hon. Member for Luton, North who elegantly expressed the difference between cars and boats. I know that Bath is an inland constituency, but the hon. Member for Bath should appreciate that difference.

John Spellar: It will be interesting to discover whether, in view of the location of their constituencies, the Liberal Democrats are going to the quayside pubs of Cornwall, Devon, Scotland—although the provision is not of immediate relevance there—Dorset and the Norfolk Broads to tell their constituents that they consider them to be a menace if they have more than one pint. I also notice with interest the normal Liberal Democrat pick'n'mix with Europe. I always used to say that Britain, along with Sweden, had Europe's lowest death rates on the roads. I do not have to say so now. The latest figures show that Britain has the safest roads in Europe—something that the hon. Member for Bath failed to mention. I acknowledge that that has been the result of a continuing policy under Administrations of both main parties. We are undertaking further work to deal with deaths of youngsters. In particular, there is significant work in south Lancashire, where there is evidence of difficulty.
 The hon. Gentleman quoted levels in Sweden. He ignored the rest of Europe, but would rightly say that there are lower levels in a number of European countries. However, he neglected to mention that penalties are quite different in those other countries. Most countries in the European Union that have a limit of 50 mg do not have an automatic ban for exceeding that limit. Indeed, my recollection is that bans come in only when one goes over 100 mg, which is much higher than our limit. Once again, the hon. Gentleman needs to consider proportionality, which is precisely what we are trying to do with regard to marine matters. We recognise that there are some problems and some potential problems, and we want a proportionate approach that enables people to enjoy recreational marine activities, but without having a draconian policy. Hon. Members ought either to be 
 clear about getting that balance right or to be out campaigning among their constituents saying what they want to do.

Don Foster: I have enormous respect for the Minister, but am, frankly, flabbergasted by the speech that he has just made. I suspect that when he reads it in Hansard he will reflect on it and regret much of what he has said. The Minister is well aware, or at least he ought to be aware, that we are dealing not only with recreational vessels, but with large shipping vessels with large numbers of people on them. To trivialise the issue and suggest that I am going to go round telling people that they are a danger because they have had more than one pint and are on a punt on the River Cam is to belittle the Minister's own achievement in bringing the Bill forward.
 I am equally surprised that the Minister is not willing to acknowledge what he himself has just said: that nearly every other European country has considered the matter and has decided that it is appropriate to introduce lower limits. He is right that in some of those countries the penalties are different. However, he is wrong if he is suggesting that those other countries saw no reason whatever to introduce the lower limit. They considered the question long and hard, and brought in lower limits in an attempt to improve safety on their roads. They did not do that on a whim. There is clear evidence that the Minister does not seem to be willing to accept. 
 Further, the Minister seems to accept the argument from the hon. Member for Westbury that there are some significant differences between shipping and road vehicles. That is fine. I have already said that I accept that there might be an argument for that. However, the Minister cannot have it both ways. In the Bill he proposes to introduce measures whereby the limits—higher than I would like—in respect of cars and shipping are exactly the same. If the Minister is saying that there should be different limits, and he is prepared to give me a nod and a wink to suggest that those are the desired limits in respect of shipping and that he will accept a differential level in relation to cars, which the hon. Members for Westbury and for Vale of York talked about, I might at least feel slightly more cheerful about the Minister's response. Frankly, I believe that the Minister could make a case on the limits in relation to shipping, and I am really disappointed that he did not make it.

Richard Bacon: To return to the hon. Gentleman's second point, can he explain why, if there are lower limits on the continent, there are none the less higher death rates?

Don Foster: I can tell the hon. Gentleman of a number of factors that contribute to that. In some cases, they have different speed limits. I hope that all Committee members—[Interruption.] The Minister says that that is not true. It certainly is. Only a few countries are introducing speed limits on their motorways, autobahns and so on. The second reason is road design, and the third is street lighting.
 There is a range of crucial issues, so the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) would be 
 wrong to separate out this one. The problem is that road safety is complex. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree with the hon. Member for Vale of York and with me that the biggest shame is that the Bill contains no road safety measures. Will he, therefore, support our amendments, which are designed to create an opportunity to discuss road safety as a major part of the Bill?

Kelvin Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman has made my point—road deaths are not due solely to alcohol. There are other factors. Nevertheless, does he not agree that there is a clear graph that suggests that if one reduces alcohol intake, one reduces road deaths?

Don Foster: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support. He is right. All research evidence shows something that, sadly, the Minister of State seems not to accept. There are clear correlations between the amount of alcohol consumed and the likelihood of being involved in an accident that leads to serious injury or death. That graph continues below the 80 mg limit, demonstrating clearly, as all the research shows, that any level of alcohol can have a detrimental effect on ability. The Minister compounds his felony with nonsense about telling people that they are a complete menace if they have more than one pint. The research shows that one can, particularly in relation to driving cars—but it is true of other vehicles—be a complete menace when one has had only one pint. I hope that the Minister will look at that detailed research.

John Spellar: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether all his Liberal Democrat colleagues, who represent substantial rural areas and villages, do campaign on the issue in their areas?
Mr. Foster rose—

Jimmy Hood: Order. We are not discussing road traffic safety. We are discussing ships and ports. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to speak to the amendment.

Don Foster: Perhaps the Minister will save up that question until, perhaps with even more passion than I had intended, I move the amendment in relation to the reduction of alcohol. I am slightly at a loss. I have great respect for the Minister's concern about transport issues and the seriousness with which he takes them. I compliment him for having introduced the Bill. This is the first time in a long time that I have heard him respond in such a way, and that is a great disappointment. In order to allow him time to reflect on his response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 78 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 79 - Penalty

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: It would be helpful, for the purposes of clarification, if the Minister would say how the clause relates to the existing law and to similar offences that have been committed on the railways or
 on the roads or if it is purely consequential on the Marchioness disaster.

John Spellar: I assure the hon. Lady that the penalties are the same as those applicable to offences by mariners under sections 58 and 117 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995.

John Randall: Those found guilty of road traffic offences may be disqualified or have their licences endorsed. Is there provision for revoking or marking the certificate of a professional pilot if he commits such an offence?

John Spellar: First, there would be disciplinary matters with their employer, and there could be questions about their professional status.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[Mr. Khalid Mahmood in the Chair]

Clause 80 - Specimens, &c. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I welcome Mr. Mahmood to the Chair.
 Clause 80 replicates certain provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1988. It is curious, given the rather tetchy conclusion to the debate on the Liberal Democrats' amendments, that we are replicating matters that pertain to road traffic. I am sure that the Minister will share his reasons for that with us. 
 Clause 80 replicates certain provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1988 with the intention of using the same procedures to take specimens from mariners as from motorists. Clause 80 also applies certain provisions of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 to offences under clauses 75, 76 and 77 of the Bill by substituting navigation functions for references in the 1988 Act to driving a motor car. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bath, having been, if I may use the expression ''put down'' during the debate on amendment No. 9, now shares my bemusement that we are accepting lock, stock and barrel the provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1988. I am playing devil's advocate; I am not saying whether I agree with that or not. We wish to use the debate to elicit from the Government an explanation for their choice. 
 This is a good opportunity to discuss problems that have arisen when specimens have been taken on the railways. I find it curious that the Government have chosen to take specimens under the Road Traffic Act 1988 rather than under existing provisions relating to the railway sector, where there have been a number of difficulties in taking specimens. I think that the breathalyser was introduced in 1967.

David Jamieson: It was.

Anne McIntosh: The Under-Secretary confirms the date. The breathalyser was introduced 45 years ago, and I would like to think that any teething difficulties have been ironed out. The Minister will probably
 argue that that is why this particular specimen has been used.
 I urge the Under-Secretary to explain the extent to which medical fitness has a bearing on people's ability to give a specimen that can be tested. It is generally recognised under Project Sentinel that medical fitness is an important aspect of drug and alcohol testing. That is certainly the case for the railway industry; indeed, since 1 September 2002, it has been mandatory for people to provide documentary proof, presumably prior to being appointed, that they have undertaken a medical and pre-employment drugs screening before the commencement of training.

[Mr. Jimmy Hood in the Chair]
 Are the Government considering random testing? Will random specimens be taken, or will it be part and parcel of an ongoing system of testing? Will the Minister say whether random testing will take place, or whether professional mariners will be given specific tests before recruitment? I would expect the Government to see merit in medical fitness on recruitment, and that subsequent random testing would have an important role. 
 As for clause 80, the specimen is going to be hugely important in determining whether or not a new offence has been committed. It is surely in the Government's interests to recognise the importance of testing and of the taking of specimens. It is no surprise to learn that people are debating which are the best methods of collecting and testing. I am sure that the Minister will let us know. 
 I am a doctor's daughter, so I shall not be in the least squeamish if the Minister wants to go into detail about the various tests and specimens that can be taken. Unfortunately, every time a doctor or nurse tries take blood from my veins, it is like taking blood from the proverbial stone—it is done only with great difficulty, and I end up rather bruised. That is my one and only sensitivity. I shall not dwell on it, however, because it makes me feel quite ill. Will the Under-Secretary say why the Government decided to use the Road Traffic Act 1988 as the basis for the provisions, instead of existing railway legislation? Railways are a main feature in the Bill, but road transport is excluded from its remit. 
 Urine testing is the standard method in the railway industry and will apparently remain so for the foreseeable future. The Health and Safety Executive and Railtrack—and presumably Network Rail—uphold it as the favoured method, which forms my question about why road traffic provisions have been selected as the basis for the specimen-taking provisions.

John Randall: I am listening with great interest to my hon. Friend, and she may be able to help me with my major question. I can imagine the situation in an accident such as the Marchioness disaster, when people were near the bank or shore. However, if something happened further out to sea, the use of road
 traffic provisions would seem to be incongruous. Does she not agree?

Anne McIntosh: I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend's point, but I remind him that we are talking about UK waters only and those in charge of inland waterway craft, such as the hon. Member for Luton, North, whose experiences as a youngster were obviously so enjoyable that they remain vividly with him today. However, it is curious. The number of accidents, fatalities and injuries is so much higher with road transport, which would appear to be one argument in favour of using road traffic specimen-taking measures, but we all agree that disasters such as the Marchioness are so spectacularly devastating because they are so rare. That is how I would answer my hon. Friend's remarks, but I hope that the Minister will respond too.
 Last year on 1 July, members of the Association of Railway Industry Occupational Physicians heard Scientifics Ltd's toxicologist, Fiona Coope, deliver a balanced analysis of the technical merits of urine collection or testing compared with the newer method, which I am ready to accept, of using a mouth swab to collect fluid samples known as oral mucosal transudate from the inner side of both cheeks. I do not know whether it is the same as DNA testing, but it appears to be a more reliable form of specimen taking than that used for urine. I do not imagine that it is used in road traffic circumstances, so would it be appropriate to use such oral testing for mariners and seafarers rather than the specimen taking for road traffic users?

John Randall: I understand my hon. Friend's point. My only query would be the availability of the different tests. There could be a great expense in ensuring that the equipment was readily available, especially considering where it would be needed.

Anne McIntosh: I may be able to help my hon. Friend, as a great deal of information is available on that point. I commend to him for evening or weekend reading an article by Paul Hunter in the July/August 2002 edition of the widely read—I have read it, so it must be widely read—Railway Strategies Magazine. I do not need my copy, so I urge my hon. Friend to avail himself of the opportunity to read it.
 As I said, I am taken by the fact that we may be being old-fashioned by—[Interruption.] I am delighted that the Under-Secretary agrees with me. We may be being old-fashioned by considering only traditional means of specimen taking; taking samples from breath, blood and urine. I hope that the Under-Secretary will agree that we are likely to make progress if the oral fluid from a mouth swab will be included in the Bill later. I understand that samples collected by absorbing oral fluid on a mouth swab will not have a known sample volume. That may be a difficulty. In the case of cannabis, a small amount of the drug may be present because of passive or secondary smoking. It is interesting that taking cannabis rather than alcohol may have that consequence. The Government may be so alarmed by that that they are not minded to introduce the measure at this stage, although consideration of the Bill is not yet over. I hope that they will consider oral mouth testing through the use 
 of swabs in the future in this House or in another place. 
 I am also interested in the fact that the use of oral fluid has the attraction of being simple, convenient, easy and has what is called the integrity of the chain of custody collection. However, I am told that just as urine collections are not perfect, so there are problems and pitfalls in the method of taking oral samples.

Andrew Murrison: I suspect that my hon. Friend, like me, has been an observer in a custody suite of the local police station. She may have seen the close attention given to the chain of custody, to which she referred. It is, rightly, carried out in an extremely controlled way. How does she think that that could be replicated in the uncertain environments that we are discussing? The measure applies to UK waters, but communications with the land can sometimes be very tenuous. We need guarantees that there are the same safeguards at sea as on land.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. For the record, I have not had the opportunity to observe the custody suite of my local police station in person or as an observer, although it is an interesting thought that one should do so. It is also appropriate, as we are not certain what rights the police have to take specimens or how a police officer will be authorised to enter a privately owned recreational boat, although we are told that an arrest can be made without a warrant. My hon. Friend's point is pertinent: at what stage and at what time will the specimen be taken? If the vessel is some way out into UK waters and away from a court, or on an inland waterway some way from the nearest police station, that will have some bearing on the end result. I hope that the Under-Secretary is listening and will give us guidance on this serious matter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury said, pursuit will be even more difficult if it involves a ship, a vessel or a recreational craft on an inland waterway rather than a vehicle on a road.

Kelvin Hopkins: I am following the hon. Lady's argument but I do not agree with it. Waterway vessels are slow and there many fewer of them than the thousands of vehicles driven very quickly on roads. Does not the hon. Lady agree that when an offence has apparently been committed or the police are investigating a problem, it will be easy to test people in charge of a craft?

Anne McIntosh: I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are talking not about driving a craft but about a craft being under way. We are still waiting to know the difference between the two.
 I argue that it would be more appropriate for the specimens to be the same as those that apply to the railways rather than those specified in clause 80, which we shall come on to discuss in more detail in a moment—

David Jamieson: We are on clause 80.

Anne McIntosh: I know. I hope that the hon. Member for Luton, North will be persuaded by the fact that we are being a little old fashioned in wanting samples to be taken only by breath, blood and urine,
 as set out in this part of the proposal. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be attracted by the principle of taking all samples by swab, rather than an inferior method. However, a sample collected on a swab cannot be divided into two, so that the donor can later challenge the result by having the stored half of the samples analysed, which is a fundamental flaw. I understand that there may be opportunities for an oral swab to be used in conjunction with others; there are tips on the internet on how to outwit the collection and testing of urine samples. Collectors and laboratories will need to be wise to the deficiency of that method and do their utmost to minimise cheating.

John Randall: One could get round the problem of not having a duplicate, which is possible with a urine or blood sample, by taking two swabs at the same time.

Anne McIntosh: Yes, I am attracted by that suggestion and I hope that the Minister will find it an acceptable solution. For many technical reasons, urine testing remains the favoured method at present, but the role of oral fluid testing, whether by oral mucosal transudate or by saliva, seems likely to be established in the future, and the Government should keep an open mind about introducing it.
 Are the Government funding research to establish international standards for the interpretation of such results, or are they likely to do so in future? If any such research is being carried out at present, will they share its results? 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury made some pertinent points about clause 80. I understand that, certainly as far as preliminary breath tests are concerned, the provisions of the road traffic provisions are being transposed into the Bill. Section 6(c) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, reprinted on page 33 of the Bill, states that, 
''an accident occurs owing to the presence of a ship in the public place and constable reasonably suspects that the person was at the time of the accident is a person to whom section 75, 75 or 77 applied.''
 For the sake of our understanding, what does the Minister mean by a public place? I would not have thought that a cruise ship was considered to be a public place. It is obviously private because it is open only to those who have paid a rather substantial fee for the benefit of going on it for enjoyment.

Mark Lazarowicz: Can the hon. Lady clarify what she is suggesting? Would the clause apply to someone with a yacht who, while under the influence of drink—perhaps one of the hon. Lady's former university colleagues—was to push over the boat by accident? Is she suggesting that that would also be the subject of a breathalyser test because it happened in someone's front garden? That is clearly not a public place.

Anne McIntosh: The hon. Gentleman clearly had far more drunken colleagues than I ever had when I was at university because I do not remember any of them being in such an inebriated state. I certainly do not understand what is meant by
''an accident occurring owing to the presence of a ship in a public place''.
 It would be most helpful if the Minister could explain how he imagines section 6 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 will be applied in those circumstances. 
 It is equally interesting to read that a constable in uniform, reasonably suspecting that a person has committed an offence will be empowered to require the provision of a specimen. What if the constable is a plainclothes officer with identification? Why should it be only a uniformed officer who is empowered to take specimens? Had I drafted the Bill, I might have been minded to encompass undercover operations, especially where it is necessary to take people by surprise. There must be a reason why the clause was drafted in that way. We want to know why plainclothes officers have been excluded, and we would like them to be included. 
 We are talking about offences committed at sea in UK waters or within UK waterways. Section 6(c) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 states: 
''In place of subsection (3), a person may be required to provide a specimen either—(a) at or near the place where the requirement is made, or (b) a police station specified by the constable.''
 Some considerable time could elapse between the specimen being requested and the offender being accused and taken to a police station. How does clause 80 relate to that eventuality? The Committee is at one is welcoming the provision for alcohol and drug testing. It would be highly regrettable for that to end, owing to the simple fact that the police station was far away from where the offence was committed and where the specimen was due to be taken at the police station. We place great emphasis on knowing this afternoon the place and time at which the Government intend, under clause 80, to take the specimen. It would be helpful to hear from the Under-Secretary what that would be. 
 Clearly, the blood specimen taken from a person incapable of consenting is possibly the most serious situation that the Bill would cover, especially if the person is on duty or likely to be on duty and called upon in the event of an emergency. Are the provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1988 going to be adopted lock, stock and barrel?

Andrew Murrison: The issue of consent is interesting. Many crews on our merchant vessels are composed of non-UK nationals, many of whom communicate brilliantly. Some of them do not, however, so communication is an issue in terms of obtaining consent. Has the Minister given that any thought? Clearly, the issues are substantially different from those that will arise with the population that might be tested under road traffic regulations.

Anne McIntosh: That is a valid point, but I would hope that police officers and fellow crew members could detect whether someone was unable to communicate because they were badly under the influence of drink or could not speak the language well enough. I do not think that my hon. Friend was suggesting otherwise.

Andrew Murrison: Indeed, I was not. I was suggesting that it is important to have informed consent when
 taking samples. To obtain it, one needs to do the informing, and that means communicating. That is relatively straightforward with road traffic offences because one is generally dealing with UK nationals, but the same is not necessarily true of the Merchant Navy; indeed, increasingly, it is not. We therefore need to make special provision for those who may be in some difficulty when it comes to obtaining and giving informed consent.

Anne McIntosh: There are two separate issues, and I apologise if I misunderstood my hon. Friend. I am at one with him on the need for the Bill to specify informed consent. I do not know whether hon. Members are aware of this, but legislation amending the Race Relations Act 1976 is going through the House. It could actually make it more difficult to recruit people of non-UK origin, but we can discuss that at the appropriate time.
 None the less, I hope that the Government have given the issue of informed consent some thought and that they will respond positively to my hon. Friend. As I am sure he will agree, there are also difficulties taking a blood specimen from someone who is incapable of consenting because he is intoxicated. There are therefore two different scenarios, but I am not sure whether the Bill makes it clear that both are to be covered. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify that at this stage. 
 As regards section 10 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, powers will be extended to the police for the first time to detain the person affected by the alcohol or the drug while the sample is being taken. Without clause 80, those powers would not exist. Again, it is interesting that the reference to 
''driving or attempting to drive''
 is taken to cover a ship that is being driven. For the sake of debate, I throw in the fact that it might have been better to use the railway safety provisions in that regard. We await the Minister's comments on why the present provisions were chosen. 
 I turn now to the provisions relating to the prescribed limit of a drug. I confess that I am not the least bit familiar with cannabis, but I understand that its effects are felt immediately. However, I am unsure how long it remains in the blood or whether it remains for longer than for alcohol. How can we determine that? We have received representations from outside bodies asking why drug testing of drivers—a breathalyser for cannabis—should not be applied. Why have the Government agreed to such a test for shipping, but not for road transport? 
 Subsection (3)(a) states that 
''the provision shall extend to the whole of the United Kingdom''.
 Will the Minister confirm that clause 80 applies only to incidents that take place in UK waters? Will the provisions not also apply to other vessels of other nationalities—in the EU and internationally—using our waters? Will our vessels using the territorial waters of other EU countries be expected to undergo their corresponding provisions? To what extent are reciprocal arrangements in force in other EU member states? 
 The Government cited the Road Traffic Act 1988 as the primary legislation, but the Bill will provide further discretion for the Secretary of State to amend the table in the clause. Under subsection (2)(a), the Secretary of State can 
''add a provision relating to an offence which concerns alcohol or drugs in relation to road traffic''.
 Once again, I do not understand the fixation with road traffic or why the Government rejected specimen-taking provisions for rail traffic. Under subsection (2)(b), the Secretary of State may also 
''add, remove or amend a modification''
 in the table. Will the Minister clarify the position and assure us that the House will be consulted through the affirmative procedure?

John Randall: I am delighted to ask a few questions about the clause. We seem to be going back to what was known in my brief days at sea as the dog-watch. We are all agreed that safety measures for alcohol and drugs are important, but clause 80 raises serious problems stemming from the different nature of waterways and seas in comparison with both road and rail.
 The Committee will by now have grasped that I am a relatively simple person who cannot cope with complicated ideas. An accident such as the one that happened to the Marchioness is simple to understand and we can imagine blood and alcohol testing of the crew, but let us make an analogy with the roads. Someone driving erratically might be weaving around the road, but if the hon. Member for Luton, North were happily moving about on his Norfolk broad, it would be called tacking. In other words, it would be more difficult to establish what counted as erratic sailing. 
 With driving, it is again relatively simple. A police car might see something happening, go alongside the car and pull it over. I am not sure how that would work even on inland water. Again, with a car, a policeman can say, ''Switch off the engine and come outside.'' If the boat is a small leisure craft, it will have to be tied up, so the time interval will be a great deal longer. Although I support the concept, I can understand the practical difficulties of the Department in trying to work out how it can be implemented effectively. I am not sure that just transferring the measures used in the road traffic legislation into a completely different arena will be satisfactory, but I would be happy to be put right on that.

Kelvin Hopkins: As so often, difficult cases make bad law. Most cases, however, will be simple and not difficult to detect. Is it not true that one can take extreme cases and make nonsense of most laws?

John Randall: I am sure that there is a lot of truth in that. I am afraid that the law sometimes does appear rather foolish. The essence of what we do in Committee is to try to make that less likely. We will never eradicate the problem, but that is the point of scrutinising Bills. I shall wait to be enlightened by the Minister.

David Jamieson: What a pleasure it is to respond to the debate so early in our proceedings. I must say, Mr. Hood, that in your absence Mr. Mahmood was excellent in the Chair. We have seen his capability and—

Jimmy Hood: Order. I should record my thanks to Mr. Mahmood for taking the Chair in my five-minute absence. The Chairman does not have too much influence on the speed at which the Committee performs, but he welcomes every bit of help that he can get.

David Jamieson: Indeed, and I wish that I had total control over that, Mr. Hood, but alas I do not.
 The hon. Member for Vale of York referred to breath testing, which was introduced in 1967. I think that I was at university at the time. She was not much of an example for the Scottish education system: 2003 minus 1967 is 36, not 45, but there we are. On that basis, she may be a Minister of State for education one day—I hope that no one will repeat that remark outside the Committee. 
 We wish the Bill to replicate as closely as possible the existing legislation for other modes of transport as regards the taking of specimens and associated procedures. We believe that it will greatly simplify the task of the police if the procedures relating to the taking of specimens are as similar as they can be for all modes of transport. 
 The police are already familiar with the procedures set out in the road traffic legislation. The table at clause 80(1) replicates sections 6 to 11 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and sections 15 and 16 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, while making the necessary modifications to those statutes in order to fit in with the requirements of this part of the Bill. 
 The measures adopted through the table deal primarily with police procedures relating to: breath tests; the obtaining of specimens, and offences for refusing to give a specimen; procedures for taking blood samples from those incapable of giving consent; the choice of specimen other than breath; and detaining persons affected by alcohol or drugs, and the subsequent use of that specimen. 
 We intend that, where the 1988 Acts refer to driving or attempting to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road, such reference should be treated as applying to all activities covered by clauses 75 to 77. 
 We wish clause 80 to remain in line with the provisions of the 1988 Acts. Subsection (2) therefore enables the Secretary of State to amend the table in line with any relevant future amendments to the 1988 Acts. That relates to a point raised by the hon. Lady in the early part of her speech, which seems a long time ago now. Amendment of the table would be by regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. I am sure that that will bring warmth and comfort to the hon. Lady's heart. At the moment, as she probably knows, testing for drugs is technically difficult, but there may come a time when it is feasible. If we should then want to add drugs to the table, that would be subject to regulations under the affirmative procedure. 
 The hon. Lady asked why reference was made to the Road Traffic Act 1988 and not to the Transport and Works Act 1992. I think that that is simply because the police are used to the road enforcement procedures, so it makes sense to model the procedures in question on those. Notwithstanding that, the road and rail procedures are very similar anyway. As to testing on ships, it will be for each shipping company to decide on any pre-employment testing. Some companies already do random tests, but it is not our intention that we should do so. Nor would we want to change established testing procedure. Police will carry out enforcement in the same way that they now enforce the road limits. 
 According to my count, the hon. Lady asked four times about standard testing procedures, but it may have been more. The standard testing procedures would be breath followed by blood, as on the roads. Where necessary—when a blood test could not be taken—a urine test could be used, as on the roads. Under section 31 of the Transport and Works Act 1992, blood is the preferred test on the railways, as it is on the roads, but urine can be used if a blood test cannot, for whatever reason, be taken. 
 We are making arrangements to train police officers to board ships at sea to administer breath tests where appropriate. Training for that new procedure is important. The hon. Lady made some play of what would happen if new testing systems were introduced in the future, and talked a great deal about swabs. I could not relate that to any of the existing regulations on alcohol testing, but she must know more about it than I do. However, clause 80(2) gives the Secretary of State powers to change procedures in the light of any scientific or technical advance. 
 The ability to test at sea will always depend, as it does now on the roads, on reasonable suspicion that an offence has been or is being committed. When a vessel is at sea it will be more difficult in practice for that suspicion to arise. The hon. Lady several times asked where the testing would take place. I refer her to clause 86, which sets out the parameters, but I do not want to dwell on that because I am sure that we shall dwell on it when we reach the clause in question. 
 The hon. Member for Westbury raised the issue of language. That could arise on the roads; probably many people with limited English drive cars. It would be expected that other crew members would assist with language difficulties. Police training will also cover the issue, but I do not pretend that there is not some difficulty.

John Randall: I presume that the police in question would be the nearest county police.

David Jamieson: Yes. The marine official would summon a constable from the nearest possible place. The hon. Gentleman outlined a scenario of a very difficult case, and we accept that there will be difficulties in getting the constable to where the test must be carried out. At the moment there are no immediate plans for marine drug testing, but if it should be introduced on the roads, the Secretary of State would have powers to bring in similar maritime measures.

Don Foster: How will the costs of getting the constable to the right place, and the costs of his time, be funded? Will they be reclaimable in some way or will the cost be borne by the relevant police force?

David Jamieson: I understand that it would usually be for the police to cover any costs of getting a constable there. However, I dare say that a ship that was some way off shore might be in co-operation with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. Indeed, that body might have attracted the marine officer to the ship and the difficulties therein.
 I am sorry that the hon. Member for Vale of York has left the Room for a moment. Since she is not here, now is perhaps the moment to complete my remarks.

John Randall: Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York has had to leave, but she has entrusted me to listen to what the Under-Secretary was going to say. I should be very happy to listen to him, unless he wants to leave it to another time.
Mr. Jamieson indicated assent.
 Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 80 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Joan Ryan.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Six o'clock till Tuesday 4 March at five minutes to Nine o'clock.